https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5049 A reassessment notice served within the four-year period under section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923 was sufficient to keep the proceeding alive, because the statute required only timely initiation and did not impose a separate time limit for completing the reassessment. Later reassessment steps taken after remand therefore remained valid and were not barred by limitation. A question arising from a section 66(2) reference that was not pressed before the High Court could not later be reopened in a writ petition under article 226, as the point stood concluded against the party. The result was that the High Court's interference was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5049 A reassessment notice served within the four-year period under section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923 was sufficient to keep the proceeding alive, because the statute required only timely initiation and did not impose a separate time limit for completing the reassessment. Later reassessment steps taken after remand therefore remained valid and were not barred by limitation. A question arising from a section 66(2) reference that was not pressed before the High Court could not later be reopened in a writ petition under article 226, as the point stood concluded against the party. The result was that the High Court's interference was unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5049